Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[La Rouge Beret]

What would be the most advanced M - 60 tank variant and, is there a limit with the upgrades.

For instance, does the overall M - 60 design regardless of upgrades (including the Sabra) not cut it with more modern MBTs such as the Le Clerc, M1A2 SEP, Challenger II). Just toying with a few ideas for a TL that I'm revisiting.

 

[JasTysoe]

A single pompom was very much larger in all relevant dimensions than a single Vickers 0.5 HMG. Comparing naval mounts, a single Mark VIII low velocity pompom weighed almost 600 pounds, compared to the Vickers 0.5 HMG;s 60 pounds. And, the pompom only fired belted ammunition, which seems unlikely to be fittable into the Matilda I's turret volume.

United Kingdom / Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575")] QF Mark VIII - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Britain 0.50"/62 (12.7 mm) MG Mark III - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

The French Puteaux 37mm might have worked, though ammo storage would have been limited and that might severely limit the vehicle's combat autonomy.

If that gun were being considered, it would be advantageous to obtain from the Edgar Brandt company (France) a stock of 37/25mm APCR shells for use against tanks. That shell would penetrate all Japanese tanks' armor from any aspect at any likely jungle-fighting range.

Another gun to be considered would be the BESA 15mm HMG used in the Vickers-Armstrong Mark VI light tank model C. The engineering of a mount for that gun, plus a secondary .303 MMG, might be able to be adapted directly from the Vickers. Likely the storage of the 25 round AP ammo strips for the BESA would be less challenging than storage of 37mm rounds. The BESA normally was fired in semiauto mode, and its standard AP ammo would provide some anti-armor capability at close to moderate range.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....nk-armaments&catid=49:eek:ther-data&Itemid=61

I too thought the Pom Pom would be way too big, but the answer appears in Diestormlie's post and makes sense.

Ah, good point about the ammo storage. I can't find decent plans for the M1. The FT carried a reasonable amount (allegedly 237) of 37mm rounds in its little turret (there's a pic at https://forum.pages14-18.com/viewtopic.php?t=52826) and given there was some space in the Matilda's hull for the radio, perhaps there could be space for some rounds there? The Besa is definitely a possibilty but I have a preference for tanks, of whatever size, having something that goes "bang" and would seem to be more effective against entrenched troops and fortifications.

Cheers

 

[Fire and shadow]

I hope I'm not butting in, but in an AH I'm working on I'm looking at the old topic of improving the Matilda 1. In this scenario it's attractive partly because it's available but also because it's going to be used in jungle and amphibious operations in a weight-limited environment, where its slow speed isn't a problem and heavy armour could be invaluable in the inevitable close quarters work. As far as I can find out it could also have wider tracks fitted very easily, and therefore would have very low ground pressure which could be invaluable in the jungle and on beaches.

The obvious problems with the Matilda 1 (apart from the speed) are the one-man turret and the armament. With a 34" (IIRC) turret ring we can't fit in an extra crewman, but could the load on the commander be significantly reduced by fitting a cupola-style viewpoint for the driver so they have better vision and can take on more of a "command" role, just as the pilot does in multi-seat aircraft? Aircraft seem to show that the commander doesn't have to be in the turret, although its better view is obviously an advantage.

A cupola-style arrangement (ie good vision slits etc) could rise to just under the level of the turret gun, giving the driver a significantly better view and hopefully allowing the commander to put more attention into their already difficult tasks as loader and gunner. And that takes me onto the second part - armament. I know a 0.5 Vickers mg is formidable against soft skinned vehicles and troops in the open but it's obviously limited against dug in troops and many armoured vehicles. So how can this be fixed in the tiny Matilda 1, without making a new tank?

Somewhere in the excellent "Carden survives" Pt 1 thread there's a reference to a Pom Pom armed Matilda 1, but I can't find out what alterations would be required. Can anyone fill me in?

Alternatively, the Renault FT etc and follow-ups got by with a 36" turret ring carrying the very short barrelled Puteaux 37mm which has some advantages over the .5 Vickers in terms of engaging dug in troops and allegedly could go through 20mm of armour at 400m. That would mess up most Japanese light tanks, which are its main rivals ITTL. The Japanese Type 95 seems to have about a 34" turret ring, measuring off internet drawings, and had two types of 37mm, Types 94 and 98. The 94, which was developed from the Puteaux, could go through 20mm at 500m. So there seems to be a reasonable chance that a limited run of Matilda 1s could be fitted with Puteaux 37s which could give the Type 95 tanks a bad day and, at closer range, penetrate the Chi Ha's 8-25mm.

However, while the Puteaux has a reasonable ROF it could still leave a Matilda 1 vulnerable to infantry. While there is no room inside the Matilda's turret for a co-axial, the Brits had a PLM mounted that allowed mgs to be trained and fired from inside an AFV, as did the Germans in the Marder. There wouldn't be enough space inside the Matilda 1 turret to operate the training handles the other remote systems used, but it indicates that both Germans and British thought that it was worth having a remote control MG even if reloading had to be done via an opened hatch. However, there doesn't seem to be any real reason AFAIK why the mg couldn't be fitted on a Foster mount, which was the curved rail that was fitted to WW1 aircraft like the SE 5A. This allowed the gun (normally sited above the top wing) to be rolled back into the cockpit for clearance and re-loading. It would seem possible, perhaps, to hack a Matilda turret so that the breech of a Vickers, Lewis or Bren could be brought into the hatch for a reload and then slung back out again. A small shield could be fitted as in the Marder to protect the mechanism and also the hatch opening.

Whenever I propose an AH idea I like to try to work out why this "brilliant" concept wasn't used IRL but it seems that the Matilda 1's role (and low budget) didn't require a gun like the Puteaux, and it was used in action for such a short time that modifications were impractical. In TTL the M1 is also being used in a different environment and after significant experience in armoured warfare had been earned, so it seems that the modification would be reasonable.

When was the Matilda 1 used in the Pacific?

 

[JasTysoe]

The 37mm Puteaux was issued with canister rounds for use against infantry, so this could work.
I want to like the Besa 15mm except it didn't work very well - problems with fumes, didn't work on auto - some guns just don't scale up well. It was also quite long which is a problem in dense terrain. But a working auto/semi auto with minengeschoss and a coax standard Besa would have been useful. But even the Mk VI light mounted a 0.5" Vickers next to a 0.303, so could a modified Matilda 1 turret with similar guns be made to fit?
Plan B could be an uparmoured 6 tonner (like the Polish 9TP). Not as good as a real infantry tank but not bad.
My choice would be for a Val - same armour as thd Matilda 1 and many common parts, plus a real gun and a reasonable CS gun. It's such a good idea the NZ army actually used it (with as many CS guns as they could get).

Snap! Actually in this TL the national engineering works is a joint venture with Vickers and the mainstay of pre-war armour was the 6 tonner. There is uparmoured version of the 6 tonner, in the same style as the 9TP. But as a nation with small island possessions scattered around and situated in the Coral Sea where it's protected by the Bismarcks and Solomons, it's accepted that the army, especially the "Light/Marine Brigade" that specialises in jungle island fighting, wants a few very heavily armoured beasts to make up for their numerical disadvantage in other aspects. So the "Matilda 1B" was built/modified in small batches as an interim type, serving in a force predominately made up of 6 tonners, with FTs and a few Medium Mk IIs used for training.

In Snap # 2, just after the "1Bs" were ordered the local Vicker engineers started working on A10 developments. They have cleaned up the bugs in the early A10 and rearmed it, but it's felt that it's still a bit too lightly armoured for close quarters work against beach and jungle defenses, and like the heavy tank that was developed from it exceeds the limit of the landing craft in use.

I promise I didn't just steal the "Carden lives on" theme - . This TL has been in my head for a long time as have these vehicles, and they just seem logical developments of having a British-aligned independent nation that has decided to work with the big players, ie Vickers for ships and AFVs and Hawker for aircraft.

As a CW ally the Armoured Bde and the "Light/Marine" brigade has mainly been fighting in the Med with 6 tonners, A10 Mk2s and Heavy Mk 1s, but as tensions rise in the East in late 1941 they and the two infantry brigades have been pulled home, with the fleet and Flying Corp. However, for political reasons the "Light/Marine" brigade is then detached to the ancient treaty port on the south headland of the Merbok River north of Penang, together with a component of the Flying Corp and fleet. Most of the standard 6 tonners, the A10s and the Heavies are being used with the main force to protect the Home Islands (in the Coral Sea, between New Caledonia and Qld) from the obvious Japanese thrust. As December 1941 kicks off, the tank squadron of the "Light/Marine" brigade is sitting in Malaya with long faces, drawing straws to see who has to take over the dozen old Matilda 1Bs and who gets to use the dozen up-armoured "6 tonners".

Cheers

 

[JasTysoe]

When was the Matilda 1 used in the Pacific?

Never, in our time line.

 

[Gryle]

The Australian base-fused round is interesting. I've seen posts from people with good credibility suggesting there was one and others (also credible) that there wasn't.

That bit of ammo seems to exist solely on the internet, where you might expect to find evidence for it there is nothing. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it does mean until such evidence surfaces there is nothing to suggest it was real to begin with.

What there is ample evidence for is, independent of the British who arrived at a similar solution, development in Australia of a hybrid 2 pounder cartridge case loaded with the shell from the Vickers 40mm HV automatic, that is the Naval Pom Pom gun, to make a HE shell for the 2 pounder. That however contradicts the idea of an Australian base-fuzed-bunker-buster, as it is a nose fuzed (Fuze Perc. DA No. 243) shell and differs from the British one only in that it won't self destruct when the tracer element burns out. For this one there are test reports, ballistic data, examples on display in museums and private collections, and photos of the shell being loaded into tanks, and so no question of it being real and used.

 

[vetinari]

When was the Matilda 1 used in the Pacific?

It wasn't...

 

[vetinari]

I found this page about 2 Pdr HE rounds:

Late 1942 – The actual HE (High Explosive as we know it) rounds appear – I have always understood the first ones were issued in very small numbers just in time for 2nd El Alamein (i.e. late October 1942) but it may actually have been later (near the end of 2nd Alamein) and/or not been used in combat until Late November or December (so post-Operation Torch Landing date). Only 40,000 rounds were produced in 1942, so must have only been in production for a couple or so months in 1942 even assuming it took time to ramp up.

Source

More 2pdr HE (Improvised)​

A quick note on some other 2pdr HE ammunition – in the pacific both Australia and New Zealand improvised their own HE rounds. In Australia 40mm Bofors AA rounds had the projectile removed from the charge case and fitted to a 2pdr case that had had the AP projectile removed – creating a 40mm HE round. These were used by the Australian Matilda’s (and possibly 2pdr ATGs) in Papua New Guinea (from late 1942 I think). They did eventually get the official new 2pdr HE mentioned above – but not until late 1943 or early 1944 I believe.


In New Zealand, who had received large numbers of unusable M3 Stuart’s with mismatched turrets from the USA, the HE warheads off 37mm rounds were used; with brass spacer rings sweated over them to make them up to 40mm and then fitted to 2pdr cases the same as the Australian’s had done with their Bofors shells. These were used in the Solomon’s campaign by the squadron of NZ Valentines of 3rd NZ Division (and again possibly by 2pdr ATGs as well), plus the home defence tank brigade(s). Like the Australians the NZ Army in New Zealand did eventually get official 2pdr HE ammunition I believe, but it was even later in the war than the Australians, and possibly only in small amounts.

As an aside the Australians reportedly didn’t rate HE from 2pdrs or 3″ Howitzers in the PNG jungle – as it tended to prematurely detonate on the foliage while in transit. They apparently had a preference for using 2pdr AP Shot against MG Posts, log bunkers and similar. As a result they stripped the 3″ Howitzers off many of their Matilda CS tanks they had received and replaced them with Frog flamethrowers. Those redundant ex-Matilda 3″ Howitzers were then sent to New Zealand where the NZ Army found a way to mount them to Valentine tanks in modified 2pdr mounts; to create the only Valentine CS tank version used in the war. A couple of these Valentine CS tanks served alongside the NZ 2pdr armed Valentines in the Solomons in 1943-44.

Source

This latter information runs counter to what I learnt from Mike Cecil at the AWM many years ago where he suggested the Australia Army developed it's own HE round.

 

[Claymore]

What would be the most advanced M - 60 tank variant and, is there a limit with the upgrades.

For instance, does the overall M - 60 design regardless of upgrades (including the Sabra) not cut it with more modern MBTs such as the Le Clerc, M1A2 SEP, Challenger II). Just toying with a few ideas for a TL that I'm revisiting.

The greatest limitation the M60 has in comparison to more modern western MBTs is the quality/structure of its armour. With no integral composite armour, it is always going to be more vulnerable, although the M60-2000 which was an offering mounting the M1A1 turret went some way to rectifying this limitation (at least for hull-down engagements). To add to its woes, the M60 is old, even upgrades cannot change the fact that the basic hulls were built some time ago and nothing lasts forever…

Having said that, much will depend on what the threat is that your modified M60 will be facing.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I found this page about 2 Pdr HE rounds:


Source


Source

This latter information runs counter to what I learnt from Mike Cecil at the AWM many years ago where he suggested the Australia Army developed it's own HE round.

The official NZ histories claim that New Zealand took the 3" CS guns from Matildas for use on the Valentines while they were in transit in port in New Zealand.
I sometimes wonder if Australia knew about this beforehand and (less often) whether the 3" was replaced with the now-redundant 2 pounders from the Vals.
I'll dig out the link to the NZ history sometime tomorrow if nobody's beaten me to it.

 

[Gryle]

I found this page about 2 Pdr HE rounds:


Source


Source

This latter information runs counter to what I learnt from Mike Cecil at the AWM many years ago where he suggested the Australia Army developed it's own HE round.

Yes, that's what Rickshaw said he was told too. Or did you change your username?

That source very definitely demonstrates confusion. So here's what there is reliable evidence for:
British:
AP/T Shell, the original ammunition for the 2pdr, what can also be described as APHE with a base fuze and tracer No. 281
AP/T Shot, what you might regard as the standard ammunition for the 2pdr. The High Velocity version as a bit more propellant behind it.
APCBC/T Shot, more of the same with a penetrative and ballistic cap
APSV/T Shot, for use with the Littlejohn
HE/T Shell, Mk.s 1 and 2 the 2pdr Pom Pom HV HE shell with nose fuze No.243 or 246, tracer igniter No. 7 fitted to the base, mated to the QF 2pdr case
HE/T Shell, Mk 7 the 40mm Bofors HE shell with nose fuze No.255, tracer No. 32 fitted to the base, mated to the QF 2pdr case
Australia:
AP/T Shell, as above, small quantities from the UK
AP/T Shot, as above from local production
HE/T Shell (Aust.) Mk 1, the 2pdr Pom Pom HV HE shell with nose fuze No.243, firing plug No. 14 or tracer igniter No. 7 (igniter inerted) fitted to the base
Case Shot, US M2 37mm Canister projectile mated to QF 2pdr cartridge

So compared against your source: It gets the distinction between AP Shell and HE Shell right. Australia didn't use Bofors HE projectiles, although the UK did. HE Shell were made locally in Australia but not from 37mm HE, but did however use 37mm Canister projectiles, I don't know about NZ as I've never looked but the idea of soldering anything onto a filled shell would cause me great anxiety. The dismissal of the utility of HE from the 2pdr in no way matches any record I've seen, they show by far a preponderance of HE and MG fire very little AP, and the 3" has a choice of fuzes, No.s 117 and 119 can be fired cap-on to render them insensitive, and 231 is graze/delay only so light vegetation isn't going to do anything to it. And finally Australia actually sourced 3" Matildas from NZ, some without guns as they'd already been put in Valentines, and was trying to get more 3" howitzers from the UK at one point. So I would think it is highly unlikely that the flame tanks were built on 3" howitzer tanks.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The greatest limitation the M60 has in comparison to more modern western MBTs is the quality/structure of its armour. With no integral composite armour, it is always going to be more vulnerable, although the M60-2000 which was an offering mounting the M1A1 turret went some way to rectifying this limitation (at least for hull-down engagements). To add to its woes, the M60 is old, even upgrades cannot change the fact that the basic hulls were built some time ago and nothing lasts forever…

I hadn't considered the fact that the M 60 existed pre composite armour. Says it all really & my preference, as an outsider, would be for an MBT with a lower height profile.

Having said that, much will depend on what the threat is that your modified M60 will be facing.

I'm toying with a purple threat, so T 80s and above combined with Leopard 2s or a LeClerc equivalent. Essentially the blue force MBTs are slightly outclassed by their opposite numbers, but this is allegedly balanced through friendly rotary & fixed wing assets.

 

[vetinari]

Yes, that's what Rickshaw said he was told too. Or did you change your username?

Yes, I did. I attempted to change my password and failed so started a new username.

That source very definitely demonstrates confusion. So here's what there is reliable evidence for:
British:
AP/T Shell, the original ammunition for the 2pdr, what can also be described as APHE with a base fuze and tracer No. 281
AP/T Shot, what you might regard as the standard ammunition for the 2pdr. The High Velocity version as a bit more propellant behind it.
APCBC/T Shot, more of the same with a penetrative and ballistic cap
APSV/T Shot, for use with the Littlejohn
HE/T Shell, Mk.s 1 and 2 the 2pdr Pom Pom HV HE shell with nose fuze No.243 or 246, tracer igniter No. 7 fitted to the base, mated to the QF 2pdr case
HE/T Shell, Mk 7 the 40mm Bofors HE shell with nose fuze No.255, tracer No. 32 fitted to the base, mated to the QF 2pdr case
Australia:
AP/T Shell, as above, small quantities from the UK
AP/T Shot, as above from local production
HE/T Shell (Aust.) Mk 1, the 2pdr Pom Pom HV HE shell with nose fuze No.243, firing plug No. 14 or tracer igniter No. 7 (igniter inerted) fitted to the base
Case Shot, US M2 37mm Canister projectile mated to QF 2pdr cartridge

So compared against your source: It gets the distinction between AP Shell and HE Shell right. Australia didn't use Bofors HE projectiles, although the UK did. HE Shell were made locally in Australia but not from 37mm HE, but did however use 37mm Canister projectiles, I don't know about NZ as I've never looked but the idea of soldering anything onto a filled shell would cause me great anxiety. The dismissal of the utility of HE from the 2pdr in no way matches any record I've seen, they show by far a preponderance of HE and MG fire very little AP, and the 3" has a choice of fuzes, No.s 117 and 119 can be fired cap-on to render them insensitive, and 231 is graze/delay only so light vegetation isn't going to do anything to it. And finally Australia actually sourced 3" Matildas from NZ, some without guns as they'd already been put in Valentines, and was trying to get more 3" howitzers from the UK at one point. So I would think it is highly unlikely that the flame tanks were built on 3" howitzer tanks.

Most shells have driving bands attached. They are the means by which the shell engages the rifling. Changing the driving bands is a non-trivial change but fairly easyily accomplished. The Germans did it often with captured weapons for which they had a round of a smaller but similar calibre. The British did it when necessary, most particularly with German 75mm calibre HE shells to make them fit the American weapon of the same calibre in the Western Desert after they captured large numbers of them (the American shells rotated in the reverse direction to the German shell, making the operation of the fuse non-effective).

 

[gaz3234]

hi guys, does anybody have some informations about Egyptian T-80 tanks ?

 

[Claymore]

Hey Claymore I got an odd one for you, 'Gruson Fahrpanzer'.

I'd like to have you scale it if you can but unfortunately the Wiki page has no dimensions for it, maybe you could use the gun for scaling?
The gun is a 5.3 cm rapid-fire cannon.

I'll understand if this one's too out there even for you.

Fortunately, I managed to find the critical dimension that the cylindrical body had a diameter of 1.54m. However, this particular drawing (see first image below) seems to show a particularly puny gun compared to other images (see second image below) - I'm not sure what the artist was thinking about as even in the 3.7cm version of the Fahrpanzer the gun looked very different. Assuming that said artist was having a bit of a creative wobble, I have redrawn the gun (see third image below). Hope this works for you. 👍

 

[Claymore]

hi guys, does anybody have some informations about Egyptian T-80 tanks ?

No more than is available online - I believe Egypt purchased 34 of them presumably before they settled on their own locally produced M1A1s. I can't see any mention that they are operational and with only 34 on inventory they would be a logistical nightmare to keep going. I suspect they sold them on - just guessing...

 

[RanulfC]

@Claymore, You realize that Halloween is coming up? That means you really, really need a "Skeleton Tank" made from real (plastic) skeletons to put out in the yard! Trust me the Missus will love it

Randy

 

[wietze]

@Claymore, You realize that Halloween is coming up? That means you really, really need a "Skeleton Tank" made from real (plastic) skeletons to put out in the yard! Trust me the Missus will love it

Randy

why not a bony at-at walker?

 

[mudhead]

Hey @Claymore I got an odd one for you, 'Gruson Fahrpanzer'.

Will see what I can do. Interestingly, CSM do a 1/35 scale model of this contraption too. 👍

Here's the site.

5,3cm Gruson Fahrpanzer

Plastic and resin kits Word War I. Aeroplanes, armoured cars, decals, figures & accessories in 1:72, 1:48, 1:35, 1:32, 1:28.

www.copperstatemodels.com

 

[cortz#9]

Fortunately, I managed to find the critical dimension that the cylindrical body had a diameter of 1.54m. However, this particular drawing (see first image below) seems to show a particularly puny gun compared to other images (see second image below) - I'm not sure what the artist was thinking about as even in the 3.7cm version of the Fahrpanzer the gun looked very different. Assuming that said artist was having a bit of a creative wobble, I have redrawn the gun (see third image below). Hope this works for you. 👍

View attachment 854497

View attachment 854498

View attachment 854499

Cool! Thanks Claymore.

Here's the site.

5,3cm Gruson Fahrpanzer

Plastic and resin kits Word War I. Aeroplanes, armoured cars, decals, figures & accessories in 1:72, 1:48, 1:35, 1:32, 1:28.

www.copperstatemodels.com

Interesting and a nice variety of scale options, never built a tank kit in 1/28.